The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to 78 year old reitered IFS and ex-serviceman accused in a cheating and forgery case, observing that merely because an amount was credited into his bank account, by itself, is insufficient to conclude that he was knowingly involved. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 336]

The bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari noted that the petitioner has provided an explanation regarding the amount credited and no evidence was shown that he was likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence the witness.

Thus, the bench directed:

"Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that, at this stage, the mere fact that an amount was credited into the bank account of the applicant, by itself, would not be sufficient to conclude that the applicant was knowingly involved in the commission of the alleged offences. The applicant has furnished a specific explanation that his bank and debit-card details had been obtained by an unknown person on the pretext of assisting him in obtaining an insurance amount and the subsequent transactions were carried out without his knowledge".

An application seeking anticipatory bail was filed by the petitioner, a retired IFS officer and ex-serviceman, for offences including cheating (Section 420) and forgery (Section 467) of the IPC.

Per the prosecution, a complaint was lodged on July 13, 2024, alleging that various persons posing as representatives of SBI Life, Bharti AXA, Kotak Life and other institutions obtained a total amount of ₹26.11 lakhs from him through various bank accounts and electronic modes by making false representations, using forged documents, and giving misleading assurances in the name of insurance.

Investigation revealed that a total of ₹15.15 lakhs was transferred by the complainant into the applicant's bank account between July 6 and December 26, 2023, which prima facie appeared to be proceeds of the alleged crime.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that he retired from service in 2008. In 2023, he received unknown messages and calls from a person who introduced himself as a helper in obtaining an insurance amount. The said person obtained the petitioner's bank account details.

It was argued that owing to the petitioner's old age and belief that he was required to receive an insurance amount, he placed faith in said caller and disclosed details of his debit card.

Thereafter, the police called the petitioner on June 24, 2026, regarding the said deposit in his account. The petitioner discovered that he was shown as accused 9 in the crime.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had no knowledge regarding the withdrawal or utilization of the disputed amount and merely because certain transactions happened through his bank account, the same does not establish his involvement in the offence.

The counsel further informed the court that the petitioner only used a basic keypad phone and was a permanent resident of Karnataka. He had sought interim protection from the Karnataka High Court to approach this High Court for relief.

The counsel for the State argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and related to an economic offence. The counsel argued that the petitioner's bank account was directly used to receive the alleged proceeds of crime, and therefore his involvement cannot be ruled out at this stage.

The State argued that custodial interrogation may be necessary to ascertain the circumstances in which his bank account was used and by whom.

The court noted that the petitioner had frnished specific explaination that his bank and debit card details were obtained by an unknown person on the pretext of helping him obtain the insurance amount.

The bench also noted, "the material allegations primarily relate to banking and electronic transactions which can be investigated through documentary and electronic evidence, this Court is of the view that custodial detention of the applicant is not shown to be indispensable at this stage".

The bench also took note of the applicant's advanced age, his status as a retired IFS officer and ex-serviceman, and the absence of criminal antecedents. Therefore, the court deemed it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Case Title: Govindappa Jayaramaiah v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-38769-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 336

For Petitioner: Advocate Sandeep Kumar Sen

For Complainant: Advocates Bhanu Pratap Yadav and Shivani Raikwar

For State: Government Advocate Amit Pandey

Click here to read/download the Order